There has been much discussion about the impact of the Presidential election on the art market, amidst much generalized anxiety about "fake news."  What about "fake art?"  Never one to be behind the curve, artist Richard Prince has stepped into the spotlight (to the extent he left).  Declaring that one of his controversial “New Portraits” works of Instagram posts of others that was sold to Ivanka Trump is “fake” and that he “denounce[s]” it, Prince raises interesting questions about what the legal ramifications of such a repudiation might be.  In this instance he has apparently refunded Ms. Trump’s money, but following on last year’s surprising Peter Doig trial (surprising that it got to trial, not that Mr. Doig won), a hypothetical artist making such a declaration might have some vulnerability under both common law, if not under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, 17 U.S.C. § 106A (VARA). 

Topics: Richard Prince, Patrick Cariou, Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, Art Market Monitor, VARA, Twitter, 17 U.S.C. 106A, Ivanka Trump

Topics: Cariou v. Prince, Richard Prince, Second Circuit, Instagram, Larry Gagosian, Fair Use, Rastafarians Patrick Cariou

Topics: Richard Prince, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Hildebrand Gurlitt, 510 U.S. 569, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, Prince v. Cariou, Second Circuit, Canal Zone, Patrick Cariou, Toward a Fair Use Standard, Michelangelo, Suicide Girls, Inc., Google Books, The Legal Guide for Museum Professionals, Pierre Laval, Jim Bouton, Copyright, transformativeness, Fair Use, Nazi-Looted Art: Risks and Best Practices for Muse

Topics: Richard Prince, Jeff Koons, Patrick Cariou, Moral Rights, Andre the Giant, Graffiti Art, Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, Barack Obama, One Campus Martius, Banksy Does New York, VARA, Banksy, Shepard Fairey, appropriation copyright, Copyright, 5Pointz, Hope, Detroit Free Press, Associated Press, Fair Use

Reactions to the Richard Prince Instagram story continue to filter in, and highlight the perpetual confusion between what is publicly available and what is in the public domain. They are not the same thing, with important legal consequences.

Topics: Richard Prince, Missy, Copyright Act, Prince v. Cariou, Canal Zone, Patrick Cariou, Suicide Girls, vulture.com, Yes Rasta, 17 U.S.C. § 107, Jerry Saltz, Instagram, Copyright, transformativeness, Fair Use, ArtNet, New York Magazine, § 107

Few art law cases have received as much attention as that of Richard Prince and his dispute with Patrick Cariou over the latter’s Yes, Rasta photographs that Prince altered, defaced, and otherwise rearranged for his Canal Zone series. Prince has now garnered renewed attention for his appropriation of Instagram images in a set of works he has been selling at a Gagosian Gallery show called “New Portraits" (and in various other venues over the last few months). He escaped liability for infringement of Cariou’s pictures (though the case settled after remand; several infringement claims were still in play when the parties settled). Can he do so again? If this recent effort is not infringement, it certainly begs the question of whether the fair use exception has swallowed the rule. Lastly, Instagram itself may have prohibited the entire exercise in its terms of use, a possible avenue to short-circuit the entire copyright exercise.

Topics: Richard Prince, Copyright Act, DoeDeere, 2LiveCrew, Prince v. Cariou, Roy Orbison, Canal Zone, Patrick Cariou, Internet, Yes Rasta, 17 U.S.C. § 107, Instagram, Copyright, Gagosian Gallery, transformativeness, Fair Use, § 107

Much ink has been spilled over the new world order seemingly announced by last year’s Second Circuit decision in Prince v. Cariou with regard to copyright, fair use, appropriation art, and “transformativeness.” In a nutshell, while roundly criticized, most commentators have taken the Prince decision to announce the apotheosis of “transformativeness” among the fair use factors in § 107 of the Copyright Act. Prince looked at the four statutory factors and applied them in such a way that to be considered “transformative” was to qualify for fair use. Most troubling was the “know it when you see it” character of the opinion. The Google Books opinions took a similar view.

Topics: Richard Prince, Cheshire Cat, Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §106, Seventh Circuit, Prince v. Cariou, Mifflin Street Block Party, Google Books, Campbell v. Acuff Rose, Wisconsin, Sorry for partying, Madison, Copyright, Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC, Judge Frank Easterbrook, First Amendment, transformativeness, Fair Use, mayor Paul Soglin, 17 U.S.C. §107

Topics: The Showroom, Richard Prince, U.S. Copyright Office, reddit, rights of publicity, Second Circuit, No Delete, Canal Zone, Jennifer Lawrence, Patrick Cariou, Florida, Detroit Tigers, Yes Rasta, Saint Petersburg, Jeff Hamilton, Kate Upton, Cory Allen Contemporary Art, selfie, photo hack, Justin Verlander, XVALA, Copyright, First Amendment, Fair Use, Warehouse Arts District, Art Law Report

Topics: free speech, Richard Prince, Amy Adler, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Judith Prowda, Canal Zone, Patrick Cariou, Lund Humphries, Boies Schiller, American Society of Media Photographers, Yes Rasta, Kirkland & Ellis, NYU Law School, Events, Picture Archive Council of America, Shepard Fairey, Dale Cendali, Copyright, Hope, Visual Arts and the Law, transformative, First Amendment, Associated Press, Sotheby’s Institute, Fair Use

Topics: Cariou v. Prince, Richard Prince, Roy Orbison, Canal Zone, Patrick Cariou, Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music Inc., Yes Rasta